Main menu

Blogging about America in decline

Monthly Archives: January 2013

There has been quite the uproar about the recent decision to open up combat jobs for women including infantry and special operations. We have even debated the subject once already on this site in an earlier post but I thought it might be convenient if I could list some of the bigger reasons why it is a bad idea for women to be allowed into ground combat. First, let me say that I do recognize that women are already in combat and to some degree this new ruling only recognizes this new reality. My real problem with this new ruling is that it will allow women into the infantry where I think their presence and the army’s long track record of accommodating women will combine to compromise America’s military readiness.

First, I don’t care anyway you slice it but women are physically weaker than men, period. No matter how hard some people might try to convince you otherwise the facts are they are weaker.

Second, even though some “miracles of nature” are out there and a very few could probably pass infantry AIT (advanced individual training) this by no means is a guarantee that they will go on to a successful career in the infantry. This is because of the brutal nature of life in the infantry which will go on to wear down people over time. Constant road marching and patrolling beat the body down over time even in a training environment. Throw in combat into the mix and the stress on the body takes a giant leap.

Third, women already suffer from significantly higher injury rates than men. Approximately twice as many women as men get injured now in basic training, but they haven’t even started training to be in the infantry yet. Those numbers come out of the already relaxed basic training environments of Ft. Jackson. Not the home of the Infantry at Ft. Benning. How much worse will the injury rates be once they start training to become infantry?

Fourth, in the first gulf war (I can’t give you statistics on the latest wars since the military conveniently decided to not track them this time around) women in the army were 3x more likely to fail to deploy as men when their units were ordered overseas. Its bad enough when support units go to combat undermanned but should we really penalize infantry units with women who are less likely to answer the bell?

Fifth, the US Army already has an abysmal record of over 30 yrs. of weakening standards so women can pass. For example, women have a different PT standard than men that is significantly lower than what men are required to do. Training is often weakened to accommodate women which compromises male military readiness. An example of this is combatives training. Because women are being trained to literally fight against men they are trained with male sparring partners and are being hurt so often that the army is looking for ways to tone down the training.

Lastly, in an era of shrinking defense budgets when every dollar counts do we really want to pour finite resources into training people for a job that they are just not as well equipped to handle? I think not.

Word came out yesterday that the US Army and Marine Corps would be forced to integrate women into ground combat units like the infantry. Despite all the evidence from numerous tests and experiments the military has done that show women are physically not up to the job senior leaders decided that women deserved the chance. Young men in our infantry units will soon be in increased danger because they will have to serve with inferior soldiers who endanger the lives of the entire units the serve in because they are physically weaker than male soldiers. One defense official was quoted as saying that “The objective was ‘to open up positions to men and women with a gender-neutral standard’ which may require an adjustment – but not a lowering – of physical qualifications, a senior DOD official said”. Notice the official already has admitted that the standards will have to be changed but of course they won’t be lowered. This is an embarrassment, this is the kind of thing that you would find in a European army that focuses on training for the next parade instead of the next war. I feel sorry for those male grunts that will have to be maimed or killed just so some woman can punch her promotion ticket.

I came across this awesome story about a weapon system called the “Meat Chopper”, what a great name. Basically the deal is this weapon was originally designed to shoot down low flying German pilots who liked to strafe allied positions during World War II. To accomplish this it was designed with four M-2 50 caliber machine guns spinning on a battery-powered turret with the gunner sitting behind some armor plating. Supposedly it was pretty effective at handling the Nazi pilots, but it earned real fame and recognition when it was employed as an anti-personnel weapon. Any of you who have ever witnessed what a single 50 cal. machine gun can do to an object like a vehicle, a brick wall, God forbid a human being (a buddy of mine who frequently used the 50 cal. in Iraq described its effect on a man as “tomato sauce”), can only imagine what four of them mounted on a single turret could do to a platoon of Nazi infantry. Spitting out an insane 2200 50 cal. rounds a minute you can quickly picture the annihilation in your mind. Modern “gatling” style multi barrel chain guns can fire more rounds per minute than the “Meat Chopper” but most are only 7.62, which does not carry anything near the punch the 50 cal. does. The only thing that really seems better than this would be the old Phalanx anti-aircraft weapon, which was a gatling type firing 20mm shells. But it was so big it had to be mounted on M-113 so it is not really a fair comparison. Anyways for more info check out the original below at www.Guns.com.

Ready to chop some meat.

PS. Yes, I do know this really has nothing to do with what this blog is supposed to be about but how can anyone not be interested in learning about a weapon called the “Meat Chopper”.